Did you study at Hogwarts School??
Annie ;o)
"Richard" <richard_kle at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k8RI7.18672$ml2.238051 at news.easynews.com...
> I would be very much appreciated if you answer the questions I pose below:
>> 1. How did the first living thing come into existence by itself? In the
> past, if one cell came into existence by itself in the primitive
conditions,
> then why can't anyone bring one cell into existence under the high tech
> laboratories? Even one of the organelles located inside a cell such as
> mitochondria, golgi apparatus, endoplasmic reticulum cannot be brought
into
> existence.
> 2. It is believed that various inorganic chemical compounds underwent
> reactions and caused to form the first living cell. Then, let's think of a
> fly that just died away. This fly has all the elements necessary for
> vitality such as proteins, amino acids, and carbohydrates. Would not it be
> possible to turn the same fly back to life by using the last advanced
> technologies and applying all the known experiments?
> 3. It is realized that some living beings have not been changed over
> millions of years by looking at their fossils. For instance, fish fossils
of
> 400 million years, dragonfly fossils of 140 million years, ammonite
fossils
> of 350 million years, scorpion fossils of 320 million years. How could the
> above-mentioned living beings manage to reach the present time without
going
> under any evolutionary process?
> 4. Let us put plenty of materials present in the composition of living
> beings such as phosphorus, nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, iron, and magnesium
> generously in plenty of big barrels. Moreover, we can add in these barrels
> any material that does not exist under normal conditions, but you think as
> necessary. Let's add as much as amino acids and proteins we like to the
> mixture and expose these mixtures to as much heat and moisture as they
like.
> Let's call the world best-known scientist beside the barrel. Let these
> experts wait by the barrels from father to son, from generation to
> generation for billions or even trillions of years. Let them be free of
> forming every condition they think would be necessary for the existence of
a
> living thing. After all these means, do you think actors like Clark
Gable,
> Humphrey Bogart or scientists like Einstein would come to existence out of
> these barrels? I mean, can a human that has the ability to think, talk,
> feel, innovate, and observe his own cells under an electron microscope
come
> into existence out of them? Or, can giraffes, lions, bees, canaries,
> parrots, horses, dolphins, rose, orchids, cloves, bananas, oranges,
apples,
> figs, olives, grapes, peafowls, pheasants, butterflies or millions of
other
> species be brought into existence?
> 5. Ability to see the world very sharply is a matter that I take into
> consideration occasionally. I examined the highest quality television
> systems and realized that they cannot provide an image as sharp as a human
> eye can. There are television producer companies such as Sony, Philips.
> There are plenty of scientists and engineers working in these electronic
> companies. Although they have all the technology and many years of
> experience, they cannot attain the vision quality of a single human eye.
> Then, would it be reasonable to consider this incredible vision system
> formed as a result of blind coincidences?
> 6. I considered the same situation for the sound. The hearing system of a
> human is surprisingly qualified. Despite there are hundreds of thousands
of
> engineers working in well-known companies such as Pioneer, Kenwood,
Hitachi,
> they cannot obtain a clear sound without any static as in a human ear. How
> can an ear that is made up of flesh and bone develop such a perfect sound
> system? If we accept them to be of blind coincidences, then wouldn't it
mean
> that we put forth the engineers and the technicians are not as smart as
> these coincidences?
> 7. As I have learned from the books I have read so far, there is no
> transitional form indicating that a living thing turned into another by
> evolutionary means. Is it correct?
>> RichArd
>>
